Opinion
January 20, 2000
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 18, 1999, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she was an independent contractor.
Patricia L. Gliemmo, Stony Point, appellant in person.
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Steven Segall of counsel), New York City, for Commissioner of Labor, respondent.
Before: PETERS, J.P., SPAIN, CARPINELLO, GRAFFEO and MUGGLIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Claimant challenges a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruling that the nature of her position as a pet groomer with a kennel was that of an independent contractor rather than an employee. Although there was conflicting testimony between claimant and the kennel owner, the Board credited testimony establishing that an independent contractor arrangement was made whereby, inter alia, claimant provided her own grooming tools, methods and assistant, negotiated a higher fee and groomed dogs at her own home as well as the kennel. We find that this proof provides substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that claimant was an independent contractor, even though there was also some evidence sufficient to support a contrary result (see,Matter of Radtchenko [Commissioner of Labor], 252 A.D.2d 688, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 815; Matter of Parker [Meyer Assocs. — Sweeney], 236 A.D.2d 721). Although claimant relies upon the fact that an Internal Revenue Service ruling established claimant as an employee for Federal tax purposes, this ruling was not binding on the Board (see, Matter of American Home Improvement Prods. [Commissioner of Labor], 261 A.D.2d 760, 762, 689 N.Y.S.2d 759, 760). We have examined claimant's remaining contentions and find them to be unpersuasive.
Peters, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Graffeo and Mugglin, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.